Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bernardi et al (US 7,194,871) in view of Conry (US 5,857,348).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, De Bernardi discloses a housing for a refrigerant compressor (1:9), comprising:
a first portion (4) made of a and surrounding moving parts of the refrigerant compressor; and
a second portion (5) mounted to the first portion and surrounding non-moving, electronic parts of the refrigerant compressor, wherein the second portion is made of a plastic material (2:53-36 and 61-64).
De Bernardi is silent concerning the material of the first portion. Conry discloses the compressor housing, corresponding to the first portion, is made from “aluminium alloy or other suitable metal” (3:24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first portion (4) of De Bernardi from a metal material, such as aluminum, in order to provide a rigid casing structure.
Regarding claim 2, De Bernardi and Conry disclose the first portion is made of aluminum or steel (3:23-24 of Conry “aluminium”).
Regarding claim 3, De Bernardi discloses the second portion is made of plastic (2:53-36 and 61-64).
Regarding claim 4, De Bernardi discloses the second portion is made of plastic but is silent concerning the plastic being recycled.
With respect to the product-by-process limitation (bold, italicized above), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, the method of recycling does not impart structure distinct from the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Alternatively, the examiner takes official notice that recycling plastic is old and well known it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the second portion by recycling plastic in order to reduce waste.
Regarding claim 5, De Bernardi discloses the second portion is made of plastic but is silent concerning the plastic being formed by injection molding or additive manufacturing process.
With respect to the product-by-process limitation (bold, italicized above), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, the method of injection molding or additive manufacturing does not impart structure distinct from the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Alternatively, the examiner takes official notice that injection molding or additive manufacturing plastic is old and well known it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the second portion by injection molding or additive manufacturing in form a high number of parts at low cost (injection molding) or few complex parts quickly (additive manufacturing).
Regarding claim 6, De Bernardi discloses the first portion (4) includes a body centered about axis of rotation of the moving parts, wherein the body is substantially cylindrical.
Regarding claim 7, De Bernardi discloses the second portion includes a frame (10,16), wherein the frame includes an arcuate contour substantially matching a contour of the body (shown in figure 2 the arcuate shape of 16 fits to the body of first portion 4).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 18, De Bernardi discloses the housing as recited in claim 7, and where the frame (10,16) directly contacts the body but lacks plural frame and their locations. The examiner takes official notice that providing a plurality of electronic components to compressors is old and well known, including each with their own housing attached to the compressor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided De Bernardi with a plurality of electronics housings (like cap 5) in order to house additional controllers for the system. Moreover, it has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first frame mounted to a top of the body and second and third frames mounted to opposing sides of the body in order to accommodate installation constraints, such as space within the machine room of the unit. There is no invention in merely rearranging an element found in prior art.
Regarding claims 11-13, De Bernardi discloses electrical and electronic components (6) mounted to the frame (10,16) including a variable frequency drive (“speed regulator” 4:21), power source connections (“individual feed, using a rectifier and direct current” 4:22), and control electronics (“control, by a compressor command and regulation card” 4:19). De Bernardi does not assign each of these units to their own frame. Continuing the analysis from claims 8-10, it has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first, second and third frames for the respective components in order to accommodate installation constraints, such as space within the machine room of the unit. There is no invention in merely rearranging an element found in prior art.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 19-20, De Bernardi discloses a plastic cover (5) for the frame (10,16), wherein the cover is received in a groove of the frame (groove formed to receive cover and seal 12). Regarding ffirst, second, and third, the plural elements are provided at modification in discussion of claims 8-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Girod et al (US 7,150,604) electronics box for a compressor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799